I believe in causal connection. I am convinced that I was a S.O.B. in my previous life and had hurt lots of women. This life is to repay some of the debts. Thus the reason of the book. It is to help to free the hundreds of millions of women who are still under the control of men. For millennia, women have been men's prisoners and slaves. Slavery of women is still going on in many countries. The book traces the slavery to its very beginning and identifies the one-tool men have been using to imprison them. It was a recent event measured in evolutionary scale. Knowing the when and the how will enable the ultimate liberation of all women. Though a stronger sex, there is one universal womanly "weakness". It is an innate sense of insecurity. This "weakness", however, was a must for the survival of our species during the past millions of dark years. Women today have no more need to feel insecure. But it is still there, playing harmful psychological game to women. To know this insecurity is to allow women to deal with it effectively. The book also points out the many potential traps and downfalls to women. The most damaging trap for women is religion. All religions treat women as second-class citizens. The other is to have children. They are career killers. Getting married is also a bad idea. 50% of the marriages in North America end up in divorce and most are initiated by women. Statistics don't lie. W.O.M.A.N. is an acronym for world of man ain't nice. Our world is a mess-wholesale environmental deterioration, wars, over-population and poverty are rampant. They are mostly man-made, by the male gender, that is. Our only hope is woman. The misery won't end as long as men are allowed to run our world. Women are our saviors. But women can't save the world without a tool. The tool is moral selfishness, which is the other central message of the book. Thank you.

World Of Man Ain't Nice

By S Cheung

AuthorHouse

Copyright © 2010 S Cheung
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4490-4823-5

Chapter One

W. O. M. A. N.

The World Of Man Ain't Nice. Our planet is a mess. And the mess is without question mostly man-made - made by man, that is, the male gender. Our planet is a mess because of three big problems: war, poverty, and pollution. Men are heavily responsible for all the problems; women are the collateral damage of men's foolish actions. This is the most important message of this book. Every woman should know this so that she won't be her man's ignorant or unwilling accomplice - so that she will wake up and do something to change this.

Trouble number one is that men love to fight. This simple but very important fact is often overlooked or ignored. Pay a little attention and you can see it is true. Men overwhelmingly prefer to settle their conflicts by muscle. This tendency is so strong that men are often blind to other types of solutions, which are non-violent and which could produce satisfactory results to all concerned.

This marked tendency to use muscle to settle conflicts is not the case only among the young and restless, the rednecks, or the soccer hooligans. It can also be the preferred way among educated and supposedly more sophisticated middle-aged men. Fistfights among disagreeing politicians are quite commonplace in many supposedly democratic countries. When two parties could not come to an agreement, it was not uncommon for some opposing members to do the convincing using their fists. I watched the recent fight among the Mexican politicians onYouTube. If you did not know better, you might think it was a comedy show. These are the ones whose jobs are to preserve law and order in their countries. Sad, isn't it?

You might think that men fight only when they are threatened, when their survival is endangered. Nope. Even when men are relaxed and look for entertainment, they favor something that involves weapons and killing. Movies are still the number one entertainment. What are the blockbuster movies? Superman, Batman, Spider Man, Hellboy.... If you are a novice producer and your prime concern is to generate profits, what will be a safe bet for you? It will certainly be a movie with a hero who has bulging muscles and lightning-fast fists or draws, and who will bring justice through muscle-power. Our appetite for muscle-based justice is so insatiable that even the infinitely wise character of Yoda resorted to a light-saber when confronting his archenemy. The audience craved it; Lucas delivered it. Same thing with video games.

Who are the mega stars? If you are an American senior citizen, it will most likely be John Wayne. John Wayne can't act. But he can surely beat the shit out of the villains. Or, many will pick Arnold the Governor, who is another popular star who can't act. How about Mr. Eastwood? He proves to be quite brainy and a good producer. But that is not how he has made his name and fortune. Our heroes are often the ones who are easily angered, are powerful, and are prone to shoot first and ask questions later; are they not?

Another favorite male pastime is watching sports. Ice hockey, for example, is the undisputed national sport of Canada. The game is fast, has lots of actions, and is extremely demanding both in physical fitness and skill. It should be one of the most exciting games to watch. But I have not watched a hockey game for a long, long time, not even during the past Stanley Cup finals. I switched the channel as soon as I found out it was professional hockey.

Hockey is a beautiful game, no question about it. However, the senseless fighting and the unnecessary violence between players have increasingly bothered me. I can't understand how that can be a part of the game. Above all, how can intentionally and senselessly hurting another player be entertaining? The sad thing is that both the media and the governing body endorse the violence. "Wow!! Look at the right hook! Right on the chin. And the helmet flew off. Is that cool or what?" exclaimed little Billy, applauding wildly. He was sharing the moment with his equally excited dad. "I want to play just like him, Dad!" little Billy said, swinging his right arm around. The dad nodded approvingly.

Fighting will no doubt be on the so-called "highlights of the game" footage. Highlights of what? Of a shameful human trait? Or human stupidity? Some players have been killed. Many have had their careers cut short because of the concussions they suffered. Still, most people will contend that fighting shows manhood. Do you have to use violence to prove your manhood? Football, certainly, is no less a contact sport and manly game than hockey. Football is so designed that every player will either hit or be hit by other players. You don't see this type of nonsense in football.

As long as I can remember, and I am more than 67-years-old, there is hardly a day that's gone by without news of some kind of fighting. It is invariably between men - from road rage getting out of control, a perceived insult, a neighbor's misplaced garbage bin, a dislike between two rival soccer gangs, or a feud between politicians. Fighting is in a man's blood. There is a solid biological reason for it.

Men's inclination to use muscle has a very, very deep evolutionary root. Humans are members of the animal kingdom. Like all animals, humans settle their disputes primarily by muscle. It is the only way animals know how to deal with conflicts. A dispute between animals is always about one of two things: Either who is going to eat whom, or, in the case of male mammals of the same species, who is going to mate first. Two animals can always count on their muscle-power to clearly settle a dispute. No mess, no lengthy debate, no lawyers involved, and the dispute will be over in minutes. Muscle is so effective that it has become the only way to do business among animals.

The conflicts between humans are not that much different to those of animals. Ultimately, most of our conflicts have something to do with securing resources, or getting a sexual partner, or both. So is our preferred way to solve them. But do we have to be like animals? Is the animal way the best way to resolve our conflicts? With our knowledge and with better options available, why do men still favor fighting? Look at the way George W. Bush handled the "conflict" with Iraq. That is cowboy justice. Shoot first, ask questions later. Bush was not alone. This has been the way all superpowers do business. From Alexander the Great, Caesar, Geng his Khan, Napoleon, and Hitler: As long as men are in charge, there will be fighting, there will be wars. Should we allow this to continue? Who is going to stop this?

Why are men so prone to use force? Well, there is a very simple biological reason behind men's aggressiveness. The reason can be traced to one lousy molecule called testosterone. Testosterone is a male hormone. Its only function is to ensure a male animal will faithfully carry out its one-and-only duty, i.e., to produce enough sperm and give them the means to deliver them to a female.

Taking a look at the several things testosterone does will illustrate its potency: It promotes the normal development and maintenance of the male hardware - the parts for sperm production and their delivery, etc. On top of that, it also stimulates protein synthesis, and muscular growth in particular. Above all, testosterone gives a male a strong sex drive and makes him very aggressive. Under its influence, a mature male - a young man, a bull or a lion - is loaded with sperm, has a burning desire to mate day and night, is very easily provoked, and has the muscle to engage his rivals in combat. Having the biggest muscles and the eagerness to use them are the best guarantee of getting laid.

You can't help but admire the extreme simplicity and effectiveness of a testosterone-powered sperm delivery system. One lousy compound does it all. Since it involves only one compound, there is no chance for it to fail. This is the way of Mother Nature. She has always favored the bulkiest and most aggressive males by ensuring they would mate first, giving them the edge to spread their seeds. Through testosterone, Mother Nature ensures that muscle continues to reign. But should we allow this to continue?

The level of testosterone reaches its peak when a man is between his late teens and twenty-something. He is at his physical prime. Being loaded with the stuff always makes him very horny, restless, and aggressive. He believes he is invincible. He has the bulging muscles. He is easily provoked. He, therefore, is always ready to fight to get what he wants. A young man without the restraint of education is therefore often troublesome.

Though the level of the hormone begins a slow and steady decline as a man ages, it never loses much of its potency. A middle-aged man can still be quite easily provoked and thus dangerous. Lest we forget, we must always keep in mind that men are run by testosterone, a molecule that promotes muscle, endorses aggressiveness, and ensures there will be fighting as long as men are in charge. Should we allow this to continue? Why don't we take a look at another alternative? What if we let women run our world?

Though a woman also has testosterone, the amount in her is at the most 10% that of an average man. At this level, it gives a woman enough sexual desire to ensure our species will go on, but not enough to make a woman too aggressive and choose to fight whenever there is a conflict. Again, this is a clever design of Mother Nature. In nature, a female's job ultimately is to bear children. This is biology, not sexist sentiment. She has an extremely important role to play. Her role is to make sure that she can live long enough to have babies, take care of them, allow them to grow up safely, and eventually repeat the cycle so that the species can go on and on.

With such a high stake, she can never consider fighting as one option by which to resolve a conflict. Fighting is too risky; she can easily injure herself. When your prime concern is safety, you'll never use muscle to settle problems. In nature, female animals just don't fight, not even among the most aggressive species, like the lionesses. The same applies to our species. Other than in show biz, how often have you seen two women fight? I have never seen it. And I have been around for many decades.

One may argue: Men love to fight. So what? It will not be a big deal if all that testosterone does is to cause one hockey player to beat up another player, or even kill him. As they say, fighting has always defined manhood. Every mammalian male engages in some fighting during its lifetime; the survival of the species demands it. Fighting makes our species fitter.

This sounds valid except for one thing: In the animal kingdom, fighting is always undertaken by necessity and the scale is small. The toll, therefore, is always quite negligible, involving no more than one or two unfortunate losers. The species becomes fitter and there is absolutely no environmental damage. For a fitter species, fighting does have great evolutionary value.

The same cannot be said about fighting among men. It can often escalate into a war. People - including productive men, women, and innocent children - by the hundreds or tens of thousands or more get killed. Land and property is laid waste, with many other innocent, beneficial species ravaged in the process. The scene after a battle is never pretty. TV allows us to see the kind of heavy toll war has exacted on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

If you believe in Darwinism, you may say: "So the scale is much more massive, and a lot of innocent men and women, and plants and animals get wiped out. But after the body count, our species will become stronger. It is survival of the fittest with a much higher price tag. It could still be worth the steep price." You may also say: "War has been the most effective way to keep the world's population manageable from time to time. Try to image how crowded our planet would be if there were no wars."

There are two flaws in this argument: One, there is a better way to control the world's population other than war. And two, war has a very ugly side, especially since the invention of nuclear weapons. War can and will destroy all of us. Even if a few human can survive a nuclear holocaust, our species will be so weakened, and our numbers so few, that our survival will be questionable. When there are very few of us left, how can it be for survival of the fittest? Can you imagine the kind of landscape and the kind of existence that might await us after such a war?

The Doomsday Clock is very real. There are at least eight countries - the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel - which own nuclear weapons and have some capability to deliver them to a foreign target. The number of nuclear countries will keep growing. If that is not bad enough, consider this: The stockpile of nuclear weapons in any one of the big three superpowers (i.e., the United States, Russia and China) is capable of destroying our planet many times over. Therefore, you can no longer use the argument that war promotes the fitness of our species, or controls the world's population. There is absolutely nothing good about a global war.

For the planet to have a better chance, we must therefore stop playing Russian roulette with war. But don't expect men to do this. Always remember that men are driven by testosterone, a molecule that, among other things, promotes aggressiveness. To be successful - not only by bringing home more bacon, but by providing his family with several gas-guzzling automobiles, a triple-garage mansion, and several out-of-the-country trips yearly - a man needs serious amounts of testosterone to drive him. Few would argue that the most successful men in our societies are those top executives such as prime ministers, presidents, chairmen and CEO's. These are the people who run our societies. So, the logic is simple: You need a testosterone overdose to be successful, and testosterone will always favor fighting. Therefore we can forget about men to bring about change. Change we can, but not when it comes to war, and not when men are running the show. The future of our planet lies in the hands of women. Let women be the bosses, and we will not see war ever again.

Pollution is another big problem that is mostly created by man, a creature burdened with testosterone. I'll show you why man, again, is more responsible. But first, what is pollution? Well, pollution is caused by pollutants. A pollutant is a substance that harms an organism when it is introduced into its environment. Cigarette smoke, for example, contains many pollutants. It harms everyone who inhales it. When you have someone smoking in a room, the smoker is introducing pollutants into the air. No one can escape it. The same applies to car exhaust.

For the purpose of our discussion, we can group pollutions according to their origins into two types: pollutants that are from biological activities and those that are not. Volcanic eruptions are the most important sources of pollutants that are not related to any biological activities. During a major eruption, a volcano can blow tons and tons of dust particles and toxic gases into the atmosphere. The dust particles can be so massive that they destroy the habitats of the surrounding areas by burying them under ash and other debris.

Big eruptions have occurred from time to time during the history of our planet. On August 24 A.D. 79, Mt. Vesuvius literally blew its top and spewed tons and tons of molten ash, pumice, sulfuric gas, and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The hot, poisonous vapor, together with the falling debris, swallowed up the three surrounding Roman cities of Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Stabiae. The inhabitants were killed, and the cities remained buried for more than 1600 years.

Though not as obvious, the pollutants from an eruption can also change the weather patterns in the years to follow. The fine particles tend to linger in the air and block out the sun. The gases, with carbon dioxide in particular, help to trap heat in the atmosphere and cause the global temperature to rise.

The other source of pollutants comes from living organisms. Every living organism pollutes its environment. Our species is just one of the millions and millions of polluters. To live, an organism carries out countless metabolic activities inside its body. And these metabolic activities sometimes produce harmful by-products which are toxic to the organism. If allowed to accumulate within a cell, the harmful chemicals will kill the cell and eventually the organism, too. (Continues...)

Excerpted from World Of Man Ain't Niceby S Cheung Copyright © 2010 by S Cheung. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.